THE EFFECT OF LAND RECLAMATION BY DRAINAGE ON THE REGIME OF

RIVERS IN BYELORUSSIA

K. A. Klueva

HydroZogicaZ Research Laboratory for ByeZorussirm PoZessie, Minsk, BSSR.

SUMMARY: Consideration is given to estimation of the regime of rivers affec- ted by a range of reclamation measures based on investigations in the river basins of Byelorussia, where marsh covers a considerable area because of Physiographical conditions.

tion have been compared with corresponding data from 30 control basins, either in their natural state or only slightly influenced by reclamation. The mini- mum summer and winter daily moduli of runoff, maximum discharge and runoff of spring floods, seasonal and annual runoff have been analysed leading to an understanding of the influence of reclamation on the hydrological regime of these rivers.

Hydrological data from 16 basins for the periods before and after reclama-

INFLUENCE DE L'ASSECHEMENT PAR DRAINAGE,SUR LE REGIME HYDROLOGIQUE

DES RIVIERES DE BIELORUSSIE

RESUME : L'auteur 6tudie les modifications apport6es au rdgime hydrologique des rivi2res par les mesures d'assschement par drainage. Cette Ctude porte sur les bassins de rivigres de la Bidlorussie, oii les marais sont largement r6pandus en raison de conditions physico-ghographiques spCcifiques. Les rgsul- tats obtenus proviennent de la comparaison des donnCes hydrologiques de 16 bassins pour les pCriodes qui ont pr6cCdB et suivi l'amhagement avec les don- nCes de 30 bassins de contr8le B 1'6tat nature1 ou peu influenc6s par l'am6nage- ment. On a analysC les indices d'6coulement minimal journalier d'6tB et d'hiver, les ddbits maximaux et l'indice d'Ccoulement de la crue de printemps, 1'6coule- ment saisonnier et annuel. Ces recherches ont montrC l'influence de l'am6nage- ment par drainage sur le rCgime hydrologique des rivisres du territoire considgr6.

The present study evaluates the changes in the regime in Byelo- russian rivers attributable to reclamation by drainage. Data have been obtained from 16 river basins, where a range of reclamation measures has been undertaken at various times. In these river basins the proportion of marshland varies from 7 to 49 per cent and drained land covers from 5 to 25 per cent of the area of each basin. The main characteristics of these reclaimed basins are shown in Table 51.

419

Topic II1

Of the 16 basins, 10 basins (Nos I-X) are situated in Byelo- russian Polessie in hydrological region VI or partly in regions IV and v (Anon, 1966). The others are in different hydrological regions as follows: basin XI in the Dnieper lowland lies in region VI; basin XI1 in the Central-Berezina plain; basins VI11 and XV on the north-western slopes of the Minsk Hills and basin XVI on the western slopes of the Lukoml Hills lie in region 111; basin XIV in Byelorussian Poozerie lies in region I. The basin of the Oressa river, a tributary of the Ptich, down to its conflu- ence near the village of Andreevka, is largely reclaimed and has been subjected to most study. The total area of the Oressa drain- age basin is 3620 km2, of which 3580 km2 lies above the village of Andreevka. The basin consists of a flat plain with poorly-defined watersheds. The relief of the upper basin is undulating with low sandy hills and ridges associated with,marshy depressions. The central part of the area is lower; the number of marshes increa- ses greatly and the left-bank area is almost entirely marsh-ridden (Mar'ino-Zagalsk marsh). Peats and sandy soils predominate. Be- fore drainage, about 40% of the area of the basin was marsh and 90% of this was lowland marsh. The peat depth in the marshes ran- ges between 1 and 2.5 m and the underlying formations are perme- able sands. Since reclamation (in 1926-28, 1929-35, and in 1936- 411, the regimes of the Oressa and Ptich have significantly chan- ged downstream of their confluence.

Between 1948 and 1969 all the drainage systems of the Oressa basin were restored and regulated and additional drainage and river training works were constructed. The total area of drained marshes in the Oressa basin is about 900 km2. The reclaimed land is used for agriculture and large farms have been established there, such as the State-Farm named after the 10th anniversary of the Byelo- russian SSR and Luban State-Farm. A dam and a reservoir for a fishery farm have been erected 86 km from the confluence of the Oressa (9 km upstream from Luban).

Evaluation of the changes in regimes caused by reclamation has been made by comparing the hydrological data of reclaimed (design) basins for the periods before and after reclamation with the corresponding data of control basins, situated within the same hydrological region, and in which conditions are natural or only slightly affected by reclamation. Comparison of the data of the reclaimed and control basins within the same hydrological region reduces considerably the effect of varying precipitation and stor- age in different years. The year of completion of all the main reclamation works in each basin was usually chosen as the point to divide the complete observational series into the period before and the period after reclamation.

Selection of analogue control basins was a difficult task, since, within homogeneous physiographical regions, the majority of gauged rivers varied in their basin sizes, whilst rivers with simi- lar basin dimensions more often than not, had been subjected to reclamation. Therefore, some of the basins selected differ consi- derably from the design basins in area and in some other charac- teristics. The scatter of points on some graphs which compare the data of design with that of control basins may be attributed to a variation in the timing of flow in the rivers under comparison

420

KEueva

$3

I dd I

O

mcrocr

drrncrN

0000

....

mc

r

mc

r

dl d

- rn NI

v

W Y

rlmmcn

mw-4

NNP

ewrl

ONODO

NNNrn

rl I

.

rnl

I I

r-Lfcr

...

crmm

OONrn

cn0r-q

rlrlmcr

N

wcncn duo

cncnm

aJOr-0

mr-mm

dddd

dmrl

mnr-

ddd

h 0 .

H

H

H > N 0

Er

421

Topic 111

;

5 I d

-I ?

-I

rl

m m m W rl

m U)

m N

d,

0

m m 0

.rl

..-I 5 tl A f H

a 3 rl Y 3

m W d n

ul rl - m N

b

rl

rl

d

m m m rl

9 tc W m rl

d,

rl h2

3 -2 5: N

401

ad,

dd

rlrl mm

NO

d,N

mu,

Nrl

rlm ulm

..

SG

rlrl

00

Nrl

u,m

mu,

00

N.1

loco d

m

00

.. m N d - 0 rl -3 rl

0

?

W

W

m rl

0

W b

ID N d N

m 0

2 : 3

8

$2

-4

.Q 4

rl d,

0

94

rlrl

WP

rl

ow

m PI

rlN

mm

rlrl

00

d,d

WO

m

mm

d,w

dd

cod,

dm

dd m m 0

- u, Y m rl

CO

m 9 b m In

rl

8 m I- m 0

or tc

0

0

rl (d c z rl

U

tl 5 L ?

f % c, m c, a m

*

KZueva

N

N

0

or-

+d

CON

m

N

ml

WN

WW

dd

mV

om

00

..

d 0

N +J d 0 U W 5 z !. .,d

x. ; H H

HIO

hm

old Ea

rlm

e*

010

..

COW

w la

N .

.

WOO

Nmm

WNm

d

WN

wmm

Add

m +mm

4r;d

423

Topic 111

during certain years. Some scatter is also due to the varying effect of reclamation on runoff, depending on precipitation during the year under study and in previous years. However, the general distribution of the points gives some idea of the changes in the river regimes after reclamation.

stics of the hydrological regime are derived from actual observa- tions during the periods before and after reclamation, without standardisation of the flow volume of specific years. The Oressa at the village of Andreevka and the Ptich at the village of Luchit- sy illustrate the changes that have taken place after reclamation in the normal runoff, as well as in the runoff of various frequen- cies.

Conclusions were only drawn after comparison of data from each design basin with data from several control basins (2 to 5 basins), some of which serve for several design basins. characteristics of the control basins are presented in Table 51 (to save space no more than three control basins are presented for each design basin).

In the stage of the study that is described here, characteri-

The main

Minimum daily mean discharge for s m e r and winter periods

Analysis of discharge data showed that after reclamation the mini- mum summer daily mean discharge increased on average by 30 to 150% in all the design basins. The Ilia river at the village of Vlady- ka is the only case for which no considerable changes in minimum summer daily mean discharge were found. Figure 90 illustrates the relationship between the minimum summer specific discharges of reclaimed and control basins.

mean discharge of different frequencies after reclamation in the Oressa and Ptich basins are summarized in Table 52. To obtain long-term data for the Oressa at Andreevka, a semi-graphical meth- od of reduction was used,*as well as graphs of relations between the long-term mean values of the parameters Qf frequency curves for the control basin of the Ptich at the village of Luchitsy. The change in long-term values of the minimum winter daily mean discharge, and its values for various discharge frequencies, for the Oressa at the village of Andreevka and the Ptich at the vil- lage of Luchitsy are presented in Table 52. The parameters of frequency curves of winter daily minimum values for the Oressa at Andreevka before and after reclamation are determined in the same way as the parameters of summer daily mean minimum dischar- ges.

ed after reclamation by an average of 20 to 130%. In other basins under study, no significant change of the values was found.

reclaimed basins and the reference basins. The figure shows that for the Oressa at the villages of Luban and Andreevka, as well as for the Merechanka at the village of Stavok, minimum winter values have increased, while for the Ptich at the village of Luchitsy, for the Uza at the village of Pribor and for the Essa at the vil- lage of Gadivlya no significant variations are observed.

Changes of long-term mean discharge and minimum summer daily

The minimum winter daily mean discharge in 8 basins increas-

Figure 91 shows the graphs of the relation between several

424

KZueva

Table 52. Changes of mean long-term minimum daily mean discharges and minimum daily mean discharges of different frequen- cies in summer and winter for the Oressa and Ptich after reclamation expressed on a % basis

Minimum specific discharge of different frequency, %

2 cv ‘s 50 75 80 95 97

Long term mean Characte- ristic

l/sec. km

Oressa at Andreevka

M + 49 - 7 o +49 + 5 4 + 5 5 + 6 2 +63 i 36 - 11 0 + 38 + 44 + 47 + 61 + 69

MW

Ms

MW

Ptich at Luchitsy

+ 40 - 5 O + 4 1 +42 +44 +46 +49

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spring snowmelt flood characteristics

Maximum discharges decreased after reclamation by an average of 17 to 30% (Table 53) on 7 basins; on the other basins studied, no significant changes occurred. Figure 92 shows two graphs of the relations between the maximum discharge of the spring snow- melt flood in the reclaimed basins and in the control basins. The first graph indicates a decrease in maximum discharge of the Oressa after reclamation. The second graph shows that the data before and after reclamation are similar, and it is impossible to trace any changes in the maximum discharge of the design basin of the Uza at the village of Pribor due to reclamation.

discharges, decreased after reclamation by 10 to 30% on 6 basins, whilst on the other reclaimed basins no significant changes were observed. Figure 93 shows the graphs of the relationship between the flood levels of two reclaimed basins and two control basins.

Table 54 furnishes data on changes after reclamation in the maximum discharge and gauge height of the snowmelt flood of the Oressa at Andreevka for both the long-term mean and various fre- quencies. Mean long-term characteristics of the maximum discharge for the Oressa before reclamation are obtained by applying the data from the control basin (the Ptich at Luchitsy), and after reclamation by using the series of actual observations. Long- term data on stage for the periods before and after reclamation are obtained by analysing the data on the Ptich at the village of Luchi tsy .

The height of the spring snowmelt flood, like the maximum

Spring snowmelt flood

No significant changes were observed in the timing of the begin- ning of spring snowmelt flood or in the date of the peak dis- charge after reclamation.

425

Topic III

The end of the spring flood occurred on average 8 to 24 days earlier on 7 basins. The duration of the flood decreased accord- ingly. On the other basins under study, no significant changes were observed in the date of ending or of the total duration of the spring snowmelt flood after reclamation.

Table 54. Changes of mean annual maximum discharges of different frequencies and stage of spring flood of the Oressa at Andreevka after reclamation (%)

Maximum discharges and For long-term period stage of flood of Characte-

ristic different frequencies,%

cV cs 1 3 5 10 25 normal discharge

Q-discharge - 30 - 4 - 6 - 3 3 - 3 2 - 3 2 - 3 1 - 3 0

h- s tage - 20 - 6 - 1 1 - 2 4 - 2 3 - 2 3 - 2 2 - 2 1

Figure 94 shows graphs of the relationship between the dates of the beginning, end, duration and peak discharge occurrence of the spring snowmelt flood of the Oressa at the village of Andreev- ka and the Ptich at the village of Krinka.

Annual distribution of streamflow

The characteristics of annual streamflow distribution have been examined for conventional years starting from a high flood peri- od. Data on seasonal streamflow were arranged within strict sea- sonal boundaries, common for all the years and all the basins, and with approximation to the nearest month. and the Oressa rivers was seasonal streamflow considered both within constant and variable seasonal boundaries.

The analysis of seasonal streamflow showed that 6 basins were characterized by a decrease of spring streamflow after recla- mation of 10 to 30% on average, while summer and autumn stream- flow increased by 20 to 60% and winter streamflow by 15 to 75%. On 9 basins, there were no significant changes in spring stream- flow after reclamation; however, streamflow during low water minimum period increased with an increase of streamflow during either both the summer-autumn and winter periods or in the summer- autumn period alone (Table 53).

flow did not change in any season after reclamation.

flow of the Oressa reclaimed basin at the village of Andreevka and that of the control basin of the Ptich at the village of Krinka.

Only for the Ptich

In the case of the Ilia at the village of Vladyka, the stream-

Figure 95 shows the relationship between the seasonal stream-

Annual runoff

The annual runoff of 9 basins increased after reclamation by an average of from 10 to 20%. On the other 7 basins there was no

426

KZueua

0 4

+

0

m N +

0

P

rl 1 0

0

w.

+

om

Wln

II

LnP

mw

mm

rld

P

rl mW

dm

II

lnw

mm

wm

rlri

0

N +

m

r- +

8 4-

0

ri I

m N I 0

m

rl

+

m 4

,-I +

0

P I

N

W

m rl

a0

mr.

II

wm

Nw

mm

0

c --I

ffls

rox alH

lk%

?$

H H

0

+ N

0

b

f

0

+ In rn d I

0

I m

0

r-

+

U? W

+

0

r. I m W

m ri

N w I

m

rl

8

(d (?q

fflc fflid

H H

H

0

0

r- +

m 4

+

m N I

0

m I

0

m +

0

m +

m

m

m I W

m

rl

CO N I

W N

rl m

(d2 13

9"

fflc

si9

3

H

Kl ri

+

0

's

+

In N +

0

N I 0

m I 0

's

+

8 +

40

qP

II

mm

mm

dd

m's

-F m I W N

m

rl

id x I

>

rdw ffla fflN a,a N

G

5 ?<

0

I 0

m i- I I I

0

U?

+

0

P I 's

W

m rl

rlm

ww

II

wm

mw

mm

rlrl

I P 82

?>

9 .rl Id

Nc

IU

c,c

.rl ffl

0

0

3 +

0

m I 0

m I

0

3 d +

0

P I

N

W

rl m

0

w I

's w

m rl a x >

la,

cc

alln crm

HN

QX

?2! H

9

0

N

+

0

U? 9

+

0

0

m N

rl +

ln W

rl

+

0

r- I N U) 0

rl

rl W I

rl m m d

rb. s:: $2

?m

9 3 a,>

H

H

C

m ri +

0

N +

0

ri I

0

N I

0

N

+

4i +

P

W I

In m

rl m

W

In I U? W m

rl

.rl 5

I .2

c?"

aal a

m

>cr -rl

rd N

>

x H 42 7

Topic III

0

I 0

N + I 0

0

m +

8 +

m

W I a w

m rl

m m I l- N

rl m

I Id 4

2%

Yrn 4: M x

0

0

I 0

0

0

8 +

0

P

I a, m m rl

0-

-rm

II

4-r

m-r

ma

dd

h 0 la

m .4

Nh

H

X 3.a

rl

+

8 +

m N +

0

0

0

8 f

0

P

I -J W rl m

m

U)

I W m a d

rl m

IC

my

rl -4

H H

x 9"

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

P

6 m d a

ul I W m rl m

0

rl

+

0

N

+

!n N +

0

0

0

N +

m + m 0

P I

m W m d

N

U)

I 0 m m rl

0

rl

+

W

-I-

lo rl +

0

0

0

0

m +

0

I- I N Io a

rl

rl W I

Q) m a 4

0

c a, la

crl

E m

o

;." %

ul d

+

ul N

i-

In m +

0

0

0

0

m

rl

+

0

I- I m

U)

m d

N

U)

I N

m a VI

m h m .4

ma

mm

I$

?a

F x

w 0

-4

OJ.

a, 0

0

z

KZueva

appreciable change (Table 53, Figure 96).

Luchitsy and the Oressa at Andreevka increased by not more than 15% after reclamation. The variation coefficient of the annual runoff changed little after reclamation.

It should be noted that for the last five years (1965-19701, the annual runoff of the Oressa at Andreevka is peculiar on account of its high value in comparison with the annual runoff of neigh- bouring rivers. This affect was not observed during the first and subsequent years after reclamation with the exception of indivi- dual years. This phenomenon is still not explained.

The annual runoff of given return periods of the Ptich at

Conclusions

Reclamation in all the basins under study resulted in an increase of streamflow in sumer and autumn period; the streamflow dis- tribution within the year became more uniform because of redis- tribution: the spring flow component of the annual runoff dec- reased while the summer-autumn and winter flows increased as well as the values for the whole specified period.

Annual runoff may either increase or remain the same depend- ing on the behaviour of the spring flood discharge and the rate of change of the low-stage discharge.

Reference

Anon. 1966. Resursy poverkhnostnykh vod SSSR (Surface water re- sources in the USSR), vo1.5, Belorussiya i Verkhnee Podneprovie (Byelorussian and Upper Podneprovie). Pt.1. Ed. by V V Kupriyanov. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat.

429

Topic III

4

2

0 0 4 2. Ptich-rir - Krinku

U f 2 2. Ptich-riu- Krinka

ii! ueea -riw-Promq/sPy fviedj

Figure 90. The relationship between minimum summer daily mean discharge on reclaimed (Nos. I through 111, V, VIII, XVI) and control (Nos. 2, 17, 18) basins.

1. before reclamation; 2. after reclamation; 3. mean value for the period of simultaneous

observations.

430

KZueva

2. Ptich-riu- Xrinka 2. ft ich- riL- Urinka

Figure 91. The relationship between minimum wintex daily mean discharge of reclaimed (Nos. I, 111, V I VIII, XI, XVI) and control (Nos. 2, 7, 10, 17) basins. 1. before reclamation, 2. after reclamation, 3. mean value for simultaneous observations.

431

Topic III

t Ptich-riu- Krinka 120

3 2 .t 3 2 80 x

0- f -.-A 0- 2 I P

> +-3 2 YO

G 3

0 n 20 40 60 60 Qm3/sec

Io. Ut -ri U - PriBytki (riPg

Figure 92. The relationship between maximum discharge of spring snowmelt flood in reclaimed (the Oressa and Uza) and control (the Ptich and Ut) basins. 1. before reclamation; 2. after reclamation; 3. mean value for simultaneous observations.

432

Klueva

40 80 12Q bmm Z Ptich-Fir- Xrinka

Figure 93. The relationship between spring runoff depth of reclaimed (the Oressa and Uza rivers) and control (the Ptich and Ut) basins. 1. before reclamation; 2. after reclamation; 3. mean value for simultaneous observations.

433

Topic 111

Ptich - Krinka Ptich- Krinka

Pti ch - Krinua Pticb - Krinka

Figure 94. The relationship between la) beginning and (b) end, (c) duration and (d) maximum discharge of spring snowmelt floods of the Oressa at the village of Andreevka and of the Ptich at the Krinka Sanatorium 1. before reclamation in the Oressa basin; 2. after reclamation; 3. mean value for simultaneous observations.

434

Ptich - Krinka Ptich - Ktinka

40 60 BO ftick- Krinka

0 20 YO % Ptrch -Krinka

Figure 95. The relationship between seasonal (% of the annual value) streamflow of the Oressa at the village of Andreevka and of the Ptich at the Krinka Sanatorium.

1. before reclamation in the Oressa basin; 2. after reclamation; 3. mean value for simultaneous observations.

Figures on graphs show the seasonal streamflow as a 1%) of the annual runoff of the Oressa river.

435

Topic 111

0 Y 8

2. Ptich- Krinka 0 Y 8

2. Ptich - Krinka

0 Y 8

8. Nieman - Grodno

Fig 96. The relationship between mean discharges of specific reclaimed (Nos 11, 111, IX, XI) and reference (Nos 2, 8 10) basins. 1. before reclamation; 2. after reclamation; 3. mean vaiues for simultaneous observat’ions.

436

KZueva

DISCUSSION

F. Zuidema (The NetherZands) - Was streamflow measured or estimated?

K. A. Klueva (USSR) - Real measurements were used. G. V. Bogomolov (BSSR) - Your figures for changes in the stream- flow should be related to the natural conditions in each basin. How far do the control basins differ from the natural ones?

K. A. Klueva (USSR) - Before starting the analysis of the data we took several catchments as controls. These were chosen care- fully from locations in the same regions as the altered basins. The preliminary conclusions show differences which may be attri- buted to the degree of swampiness, the nature of the drainage and the type of catchment. We are making more sophisticated compara- tive analyses to understand these effects.

V. F. Shebeko (USSR) - 1. In what way did you account for any other aspects of human activity in a basin in your estimation of the effect of reclamation on the streamflow? 2. In what way did you account for hydrometeorological conditions in the periods of comparison of the streamflows before and after drainage of Swamps?

K. A. Klueva (USSR) - 1. We only took into--account the combined effect of reclamation measures. 2. The relationships between the corresponding streamflow values were compared in order to eliminate the effect of variations in precipitation and storage.

S. M. Perekhrest (Ukrainian SSR): - To what period may the analy- sis be referred if reclamation took place over many years?

K. A. Klueva (USSR) - In the fifties, we looked at the effect of drainage on the Oressa considered in individual stages. The con- clusion was drawn that changes aid not occur simultaneously with the reclamation works but only after these had been completed (1935). With additional reclamation works now in progress no changes have been detected.

43 7